GM to Add 750 Jobs to Colorado/Canyon Plant

Canyon plant run 1 II

Based on early orders from Chevrolet and GMC dealers, GM has decided to add a third shift to the Wentzville, Mo., plant to meet expected demand for its 2015 Chevrolet Colorado and GMC Canyon midsize pickup trucks.

According to The Detroit News, early dealer orders are about seven times what the manufacturer expected out of the gate. Whether those initial orders and the popularity of the "build your own" Chevy Colorado Web site will translate into actual sales remains to be seen.

The article also notes that some experts are predicting that the midsize pickup segment could grow by more than 20 percent over the next three years, during which the Toyota Tacoma, Nissan Frontier and Honda Ridgeline will all have newly designed and upgraded entries in the segment.

The Wentzville plant will produce certain models of GM's full-size vans as well as the two new midsize pickups. With three shifts running full speed, we have not heard how many small pickups that could mean but we're guessing the interest in the new truck could result in total combined sales close to the 100,000-unit mark after a full year on sale. GM's three-truck strategy will certainly make GM dealerships happy, and the town of Wentzville will benefit as well.

Manufacturer image


Canyon plant run 2 II



Nice to see more jobs for the USA.

Hopefully this demand gets Toyota and Nissan to fire back.

Nice pickup wow,,

More jobs are great but I will definitely see if this new truck is better than last Colorado. Test drove one once and there wasn't much I liked about it but the legroom and what I read about their quality and reliability was really bad.

Anyone know when the press embargo is lifted on the Colorado/Canyon?


Pun intended????

Great news indeed!

Other than the short wheelbase. Doesn't look much smaller than A regular half ton. Unless that top worker is very short. That could explain its mediocre fuel economy.
Unfortunately it's the short wheelbase that hurts its trailer towing capacity in my opinion.

Does the crew cab come with the 6.2 ft. bed. that Might tow decently. But how much does that reduce the those limits.

Oh, I agree. Thanks for the American jobs.


Yes the crewcab has a optional 6'2" bed. As to towing I want to say it is 6500 or 6900lbs.
My two complaints:
- No manual option available for 4x4's and v6's
- Price. IMO they are about 2K too high. But I am sure rebates will follow as time goes on.

Will wait for the 2016 model, but it looks promising to finally replace my S10 ZR2 with a worthy successor.

As soon as the diesel comes out I'm placing my order. 4x4, Crew-cab, 6.2' bed, diesel in the dark grey or a blue if they decide to offer it. Then it gets a headache rack and a tool box/auxiliary fuel tank combo as soon as the aftermarket catches up.

To be completely honest, I'd rather have the new Ranger with the more powerful 3.2l diesel, but Ford doesn't see fit to bring that over, so it looks like GMC it is. I thought about the new 2.7L F150 too, but even if it gets the same fuel economy as the Canyon, Ford recommends premium gas for maximum performance/towing. Premium costs more than diesel here and I'd rather have the smaller truck anyway, so that pretty much killed that idea.

I'm hoping it will be a good little truck, but I can't help but be a bit anxious with all these recalls. GM's better have it together before they start making these trucks.

Has to be better then the last model, I had one for a rental once and it had no power, poor handling, and cheap interior.

Should they not wait until the are actually on sale first before claiming expected demand. Just because dealers have ordered them does not mean the public is going to flock to the dealers to buy them.

The creation of jobs is always a good thing, and if the Colorado does well, I'm sure many more will be created on top of this.

People do need to realize that any manufacturing type of job is going to have less job security than the typical office job. On the one hand it's great jobs are being created, on the other hand people shouldn't base their livelihood on it with the expectation of always being able to find an assembly line job.

The automakers seem to go back and forth on whether they want to create jobs here or on the other side of our boarders. What happens when the UAW gets greedy?

Finally, manufacturing is based on how well a vehicle is selling. One year they build more, the next year they build less. One year there are overtime shifts, the next year there's not. It's not an easy life for the workers in that industry.

"According to The Detroit News, early dealer orders are about seven times what the manufacturer expected out of the gate."

It doesn't say much for the manufacturers awareness of the customer's needs and wishes.

Seems a bit premature, in my opinion.

Should they not wait until the are actually on sale first before claiming expected demand. Just because dealers have ordered them does not mean the public is going to flock to the dealers to buy them.

Posted by: Ram Big Horn 1500 | Sep 16, 2014 7:40:01 PM

How come you didn't say this when all them dealers ordered Ram Eco Diesels? Oh wait this isn't a Ram truck so you got to hate on it LOL!

@ buddyIam

The front end makes the truck look bigger (with that deflector under the front bumper, for better MPGs), but if you look further back, to around the door area, it looks about the same size as the Tacoma.

Good looking trucks though.

@ Johnny Doe: maybe Ram 1500 Big Horn was being a bit sarcastic, after all, those diesels are selling.

These trucks are just a tad smaller then the last Dakota, in just about every measure, with the exception a quad cab Dakota had a 5'4" bed, no 6'2" option.

Wow, it's smaller by a lot when compared to a Ram 1500, and yet gets only one mile per gallon better, with an 11.5 to 1 compression engine and direct injection? Not exactly something to write home about.

Hope Mark Williams loads up a crew cab one to the max tow and gives it the test.

Mid-sized trucks are particularly useful as "lifestyle" trucks. I don't think the difference in FE is enough of an influencing factor in the decision between a mid-sized and full-sized truck.

None of the vehicles I own are particularly fuel efficient, so maybe that makes me a bit biased, however, I got more important things in life to worry about than trying to maximize my FE.

Where I see a mid-sized truck making sense is if I was doing something like biking or some other type of outdoor activity that made having a truck convenient. I find that even though I love my Ram, sometimes I get tired of driving a full-sized truck around. Sometimes it's nice driving a small vehicle for a change, it feel less "tedious".

You mean GM-GMc added those jobs. Just like your first picture shows. It's a Sierra and Canyons world now. Chevrolet trucks were destined for the graveyard once Chevrolet and the rest were destroyed (IE: Real Buick, Olds, Real Pontiac, Genuine Chevrolet) in favor of Corporate GM as one entity with fake brands. It's GMC's playground these days. Good luck long term Chevrolet. It's over. Thanks GM-GMc. Nice job. Corporate thieves of Real companies.

"Mid-sized trucks are particularly useful as "lifestyle" trucks" Which is what these will end up as. Global Pickups roughly same size, but much stronger suspensions and frames are built for work. That is why they are "1tonners" minimum 2,200lb payload, up to 3000lb or slightly more.
Strangely the basic Car/Truck Ford Falcon was always used as a work vehicle

@Robert Ryan
In my mind the main issue with these mid-sized trucks is that they really are not much smaller or efficient than some full-sized trucks. Americans are accustomed to large trucks, so it may be hard for many to have much of an incentive to downsize.

If mid-sizers have too much overlap in the capabilities of a full-size, that will cannibalize sales. I don't think it's an easy problem to solve in the American market.

Unless they can offer substantial fuel savings, but that is to be seen

I strongly believe the Colorado-Canyon will be a winner for GM.
The information I read about it here on PUTC impressed me.
Ford left a big hole in the mini pickup market when they discontinued the Ford Ranger.
Older men love the mini pickups cause they are easy to drive with lower door height to make it easy to get in and out, as they get older they can't climb into a high 4x4 full size truck.
This truck can save GM from all the bad news they had in the past, if GM makes a good one everybody will forget about the past failures and recalls.

It's good to see the additional employment for to manufacture these little trucks.

I did state that these vehicles will surprise in their sales numbers.

The guys who continually attempt to use FE as an argument are only using CAFE numbers. I have read that Pentastar Rams are averaging 16-17mpg.

These trucks are considerably lighter and in the real world will produce better efficiencies.

As for the lifestyle comment, well most or I would say 75-80% of full size trucks are lifestyle vehicles as well. So this is a poor description of them.

They will do most of the work a full size can.

The people who will buy these might very well be someone looking at a large SUV/CUV or even a midsize SUV/CUV.

Some sales will come from the full size trucks, especially those who only after a V6 full size.

If someone wants a full size they will buy a full size.

So, I do see a mix of potential customers for these.

As I've stated these will be a surprise on how well they sell.

It isn't all about the size, but yet it is.

@ Dave Robertson

Please name one instance where a Afrucan American became CEO and did what you say will happen. See a shrink about your race problems and move on.

Country life isn't for everybody, but living in Wentzville and working at the GM plant would be A-ok (except Dec/Jan/Feb/Mar). Used to live near there.

That new GMC looks awesome. It will sell a lot of trucks and that new chassis/powertrain combo absolutely will steal some half ton sales from GM's other truck lines (and Ford and Ram and Toyota).

Hard to know how many of the base trim they'll sell; that four cylinder is gonna be breathing hard trying to haul that heavy little ext-cab truck around. The V6 will be super.

Sales are hard to figure, though. Ford and Ram dealers are absolutely dumping 2014 trucks onto the lots.

Around central Florida you can get some insane deals on 1 year old Rams and F150s. Could hurt Colorado sales, but I don't think it will hurt the GMC Canyon much--that truck is dying to be driven.

Want one! Can you tell?

GMN said the manual 4x4 with the V6 may become available in 2016 if there is a significant enough demand.

Why didn't GM make the air dam higher in the middle like they did with all their other models? Looks kinda cheap with a flat piece of plastic onder the bumper, would look better with the lifted center and provide more clearance on rutted off road trails.

The Wentzville area is a fast growing community and this will aid the continued growth.
I'm a Ford guy but hope this line-up does well. This will push Ram and Ford towards offering a smaller truck again. My daughter has a Ranger that has 240,000 miles on it and still runs strong.

If the GMC website is to be believed, the Canyon will be CC/LB only. This is really disappointing as I'm not fond of the Chevy's styling and the GMC interior options are much better but I don't want or need the long bed. My Fronty is getting long in the tooth and I'd hoped to replace in the next year or two with the Canyon.

I had bought a new Colorado back in 07,it was the single worst new vehicle I have ever owned.From the cab floors filling up with rain to the electrical system doing weird stuff that the dealer techs couldn't track down.

But,I will more then likely buy another once the diesel comes out.I'm one of those disabled old farts that just can't comfortably use a full size truck anymore.I have a friend of mine who is one of the engineers at Wentzville and he has had a new Colorado for testing,and he loves it.His opinion to me is gold,so I will more then likely take the plunge.

As for the new GM midsize twins,I believe that it will be a runaway hit and sell better then expected,due in part to the pent up demand for a really new midsize truck.Anyway,that's how I see it.

While I support US job creation, it saddens me that these people would be forced to join a union by state law in order to work. This is why I fully support right to work states and laws. No one should be lawfully forced to join any organization or union in order to gain employment. All workers should have the right to choose if they want to join or not without it affecting their employment.

TRX-4 Tom

I understand that you may have not read the comments on all the other colorado articles, but....

The Colorado with a V6 compared to the RAM with a V6 is not a valid comparison.

The colorado is faster, can tow more and gets an 1 MPG.

The RAM is bigger and holds more volume.

It's all in what you want to buy. 1 MPG is a 4-5% increase in fuel economy on these trucks, so it's no small improvement.

I have already priced a Colorado, the way i want it for $28,700. It is a long bed Crewcab power everything Driver seat ,windows , door locks ,V6 Auto trans, Trailer tow package two wheel drive ( includes posi track heavy duty suspension, extra cooling )in light brown.

@Johnny Doe

Ram did not come out and announce they were adding shifts before the EcoDiesel even went on sale to the public.

The dealers order a total of 8,000 trucks, which comes out to 3.3 trucks per dealer. Try again junior.


Now I want it more!!

This is only the LT middle model not the Z71 top of the line. Only a couple of options were selected as well.

Add 4x4 and this truck jumps to over 35,000 dollars before those same options are added.

2015 Colorado Crew Cab, Long Box RWD


2015 Colorado Crew Cab, Long Box RWD


View Standard Equipment

MSRP1 from $28,630
Destination Freight Charge $875


Red Rock Metallic $0
Jet Black/Dark Ash, Leather-appointed seat trim $950
17" Blade Silver metallic cast aluminum wheels $0
LT Convenience Package Remove $615
Luxury Package Remove $1,080
3.6L DOHC V6 engine Standard
6-speed automatic transmission Standard
Automatic locking rear differential Remove $325
Trailering Equipment Remove $250
Tow/Haul Mode $0
AM/FM/SiriusXM®1 audio system with 8" diagonal color touch screen with Chevrolet MyLink®2, USB ports3 and aux jack $0
Front bucket seats Standard
Power front passenger seat (4-way) $0
Heated driver and front passenger seats $0
Remote vehicle starter system $0
Single-zone automatic climate control air conditioning $0
Inside rearview mirror with auto-dimming $0
17” all-season blackwall tires $0
Projector-type headlamps $0
Fog lamps $0
Outside heated power-adjustable chrome mirrors $0
EZ-Lift and Lower Tailgate $0

Options Total $3,220

Total MSRP $32,725
Price $32,725*

This is the Z71 top of the line 4x4 with the same options as above. These trucks are high priced. I don't see them selling a whole lot when you can get a full size truck for the same prices.

2015 Colorado Crew Cab, Long Box RWD


Chevy 1500 two wheel drive crew cab standard bed with same to options as above trucks

2014 Silverado 1500 Crew Cab, Short Box RWD

Final Price

Same 1500 LT truck crew cab standard bed with 4x4 and same two options.

2014 Silverado 1500 Crew Cab, Short Box RWD

Final Price

Here is the link to the Chevy site so you can build your own, they are not cheap trucks.

This is the work truck so it is the bottom line model.

2015 Colorado Crew Cab, Long Box RWD


One can thank tariffs for pushing small truck prices squarely into the realm of large trucks. Assembly line costs aren't going to be much different either.

Here is an interesting tidbit:

I split my look from 1975 to 1879 then 1980 – 1981. 1980 was when the chicken tax chassis cab loophole was closed.

1975-1979 (pricing based upon base model regular cab long box 4×2)

Ford F150……37% increase
Ford Courier…54% increase
……………17% difference

Chevy C1500….42% increase
Chevy Luv……44% increase
……………2% difference

Toyota………39% increase

Everyone saw similar price increases whereas the Courier price grew 17% faster. If inflation was the only factor prices would rise proportionally between size classes.

Cue 1980 and the chassis cab import loophole closure.

1980 – 1982
Ford F150….23%
………….14% difference
Chevy 1500…9%
Chevy Luv….43%
………….34% difference

In the two years post loophole closure the price of small trucks grew 14-34% over large trucks. (Average 24%)

1975-1979 domestic badged small truck prices also grew faster (2-17% – average 9.5%)


I was around back in the 1970s and can testify that there was a factor in addition to inflation at work on truck prices and the difference in price between compacts and full size--FE

Fuel economy was beginning to be a huge factor in all areas of the auto business here. The figures you discussed above can also be a reflection of the astonishing rise in retail gas prices between 1975 and 1979

@papa jim - I posted those stats because they do show that tariffs have put upward pressure on small truck prices. I read a paper published in a Law Journal that indicated that once the loophole was closed Japanese truck prices increased 23% in 3 years and domestic small trucks went up 26%. Some of that was inflation but small truck prices accelerated faster than large trucks. I found a few other doctorial dissertations indicating the financial costs passed on to the public by tariffs on vehicles, steel, textiles, and even sugar.

Not sure how many times we have to go through this- but the people buying the mid-sized (MS) trucks DON'T WANT A FULL SIZE (FS) TRUCK even if the price is similar. They don't want or need the large size or large towing capacity. And when you see the new GM MS trucks in person, they really are quite a bit smaller then those gigantic FS trucks (especially in the crew cab long bed configuration). Regarding prices, if you compare the 2015 models (without 2014 year end incentives), you will see the price of the new MS truck is less expensive than the FS depending on the configuration. For example, a base 2015 Silverado LT 4X4 Z71 with standard box is $43,505. A base 2015 Colorado LT 4X4 Z71 with long box is $35,290. So, in a number of configurations, when comparing 2015 models, you will be able to buy one of the new 2015 GM MS trucks for less money than a comparable new 2015 FS truck. In regards to the perceived bad gas mileage of the V6 model- that's just the way it is- you can only do so much with a 305 HP gasoline engine and a 6-speed tranny. The new GM 8-speed tranny will help some when that becomes available. If gas mileage and low cost is the priority, and someone wants the most economical truck available, buy the V4 Extended Cab 2WD (base price of $20,995). I am guessing that V4 will get 20 MPG city and close to 30 MPG hwy, and you don't need to pay the extra cost for a diesel model and diesel fuel. Even the V4 4X4 should get good mileage. I understand it won't be very powerful, and won't be able to tow a lot, but if you want a truck, and cost and mileage is the priority, that is what some people will get. Of course, if you have the extra money to spend, and you want the most powerful and best mileage truck, wait for the 2016 diesel model and get great mileage and the most powerful MS truck available. Bottom line is whether you like GM or not, they are the only ones offering the most advanced MS truck on the market today. And they are offering the V4 for great mileage, the V6 for good power and decent mileage, and the 2016 diesel for great power and great mileage. So if someone doesn't want or need a FS truck, they now have a very good MS truck option to consider. This is why I predict the new GM twins will sell well.


Seems to me those people already have had choice for a midsize truck from Toyota, Honda, Nissan and even Chevy/GMC and the sales numbers just are not that impressive for midsize trucks.

I just don't understand why you think that this market is going to explode and take off just because Chevy/GMC is trying yet again. This is what their forth attempt over the years? They had the LUV, the S10, The first Colorado/Canyon and now the second edition of the Colorado/Canyon.

Maybe it is time to admit that this midsize truck market is limited. Sure there will always be someone who will buy these trucks but we have seen the market penetration for them and it is not all that impressive.

It is doubtful that Chevy/GMC will be pulling many buyers from Honda, Toyota or Nissan. The real likely hood of the buyers for the new Colorado/Canyon is the buyers will come mainly from their own customer base for Silverado/Sierra trucks cannibalizing their own full size sales.

I doubt many Ford F150 buyers will jump ship and I don't believe many Ram 1500 buyers will jump ship either.

I do not expect this new Colorado/Canyon to sell any better than the last ones did.


One more thing quit calling the four cylinder a V-4, it is not a V-4 it is an Inline 4 or better know as I-4.

At launch, there will be two engines powering the Colorado -- a 2.5-liter I-4, with an estimated 193 hp and 184 lb-ft of torque, and a 3.6-liter V-6, with an estimated 302 hp and 270 lb-ft.

Read more:

@ steely123,

I am guessing that V4 will get 20 MPG city and close to 30 MPG hwy.


You would be very wrong on your guess for the fuel mileage for the I-4 engine as it gets the same mileage as the V-6 does, 18 city 26 highway.

I see no reason to purchase the four cylinder as it offers nothing over the V-6 and has to have a lower rating for load and towing.

Chevy/CMC is sure being tight lipped about load capacity and towing ability, They throw out one number of 7,000 pounds towing and that is all I can find at the Chevy site.

I see nothing that says this rating is SAE J2807 certified.

The comments to this entry are closed.